Interesting gem from the MM apeal hearing

[357mag]

During the hearing Mr Gill mentioned this
https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSea ... 16805939f3
and page 37,38,39
(just do "find 18,600") and it takes you to the bit about financial requirement

[357mag]

The Committee recalls that the level of means required by States to bring in the family or certain family members should not be so restrictive as to prevent any family reunion (Conclusions XIII-1, Netherlands). It finds that the threshold of £18,600 (or more) in income is manifestly too high and is an undue hindrance to family reunion, given that, according to data collected by the Office for National Statistics, almost 50% of British workers do not earn this sum. Therefore it concludes that the threshold is not in conformity with Article 19§6 of the Charter.

[357mag]

I'm surprised there has been no comments to this.
The report is an annual thing regarding the European Social Charter. The European Charter of Social Rights ECSR is sister to the European Court of Human Rights ECtHR which UK signed up to in 1961 so before we even joined the EU, there are now 47 countries signed up to it. If we come out of the EU its still a binding agreement.
Just my view, it would be nice if the Supreme Court appeal swept away the £18,600 financial requirement but it does not matter. The UK will have to comply with the Social Charter or they will face penalties by the ECtHR.
The financial requirement will have to go.

[ellingham84]

@357mag, if you posted under the initial thread you opened last week then I guess you may have had more responses...

In relation to the £18600, I can imagine a situation where this is repealed either due to enforcement of applicable charters or EHCR or even change in government, but it wont resolve the issue of "no recourse to public funds" - I see loads of comments on a number of forums from people who passed the financial requirement (£18600) but do not have enough money to live on.

The question would then be, would approval of a visa be fair or appropriate on these people who ultimately cannot afford to support themselves and for whom they have no access to government money. I understand that every situation is very different and everyone can live on different amounts, but this leaves so much subjectivity in the UKVI officers decisions which then lead to large numbers of appeals (if unsuccessful) and ever greater costs to the government (taxpayer/us).

At least with a hard and fast rule it simplifies the process and helps expedite the decision making, with government expenditure cuts many departments are struggling (whether the is still inefficiency is another question) so any simplification of decision making must be a good thing.

[357mag]

No no my friend this is different from that thread. On there I was trying to point the good folks to where they could watch the proceedings if they could not attend.
This thread is specifically in relation to the report which just happens to have been recognised by Mr Gill.

I feel this report is very important and ok I'm not very bright and I thought that by highlighting it the gurus on here could have given their wisdom as to whether the information would be of use.

[secret.simon]

I would not get too excited about that report.

You are correct that the ECHR is a different beast from the EU and that the UK was a founding member.

But, the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) can not force the government to change the laws, it can only suggest to the government. It is typically the bad publicity that forces governments to act, not the ruling by itself.

Currently the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) is imported into UK law by the Human Rights Act. But the Conservatives have been rabbiting on for ages about getting rid of the Human Rights Act. No Human Rights Act, no ECHR as a part of the UK law.

It is significantly weaker than EU law and in a sense it has to be. It has such outstanding exemplars as Turkey and Russia as its members and let's just say that Putin's idea of human rights is not quite the same as ours.

If you have the time and the inclination, view some of the judgments on the UK Supreme Court's website. They are very different from European courts. Our courts often give very measured and limited judgments and give primacy to the will of the legislature and executive.

So, rather than striking down the 18,600 limit completely, I expect them to set out a test of what would be acceptable to them as a means to ensure that non-EEA spouses can be supported without access to public funds. So, rather than a fixed amount, perhaps, it could be a weighed average of regular costs for a couple living together (average rent, transport, groceries, etc). Or it could be a specified percentile of average earnings.

But I highly doubt that the UK Supreme Court would strike the limit down completely. That is just not the British way.